Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Group asks SC to nullify CA order to lift suspension of 4 ERC execs



By Joel R. San Juan -  March 13, 2018

A PETITION was filed before the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday to declare as null and void the 60-day temporary restraining order (TRO) that the Court of Appeals (CA) issued on February 9, enjoining the Office of the Ombudsman from implementing the one-year suspension it imposed against four commissioners of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).
In a 17-page petition, the Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas Inc. (APBPI) also sought the Court’s immediate issuance of a TRO or a status quo ante order to prevent the CA’s Ninth Division from implementing its order pending final resolution of the petition
The CA, in its February 9, 2018, resolution, said it issued the resolution in order not to impair public service considering that since the suspension of the four commissioners by the Ombudsman last December 11 the Palace has not acted to replace them.
ERC commissioners Alfredo Non, Gloria Victoria Yap-Taruc, Josefina Patricia Asirit and Geronimo Sta. Ana were ordered suspended by the Ombudsman last September 29 for one year after they were found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, aggravated by simple misconduct and simple neglect of duty for allegedly exempting Meralco and other firms from the competitive selection process (CSP), which mandates that all power-supply agreements (PSAs) be covered by public bidding.
Last December 28 they filed an appeal before the CA, assailing the Ombudsman’s suspension order against them and sought the issuance of an injunctive relief.
In its petition, APBPI claimed that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the 60-day suspension order.
The group also argued that the CA has no discretion to stay a decision of the Ombudsman and that the TRO is an encroachment on the rule-making powers of the Ombudsman under the Constitution, which grants the the authority to promulgate its own rules of procedure.
The group cited the court’s ruling in Ombudsman v. Samaniego, where it was held that “the appealable decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately executory pending appeal and may not be stayed by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ.”
“The Ombudsman’s decision in imposing the penalty of suspension for one year is immediately executory pending appeal. It cannot be stayed by the mere filing of an appeal to the CA,” the petitioner said.
“In this case, the public respondent committed or acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolution granting a TRO against an appealable decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, when jurisprudence is clear on the matter and the principle as to the nature of such Ombudsman decision is already settled. The assailed order was issued with grave abuse of discretion and was patently erroneous,” the group added.
The CA, in its assailed resolution, explained that grave and irreparable injury can be committed if the TRO is not issued in favor of the petitioner-commissioners.
The case stemmed from the decision of the ERC to reset the deadline for compliance with the CSP from November 6, 2015, to April 30, 2016, thus, exempting the PSA from undergoing transparent and public bidding ordained in the CSP.
The Ombudsman said the ERC commissioners exercised “gross inexcusable negligence” in delaying CSP’s implementation since the process was put in place to make the PSAs’ cost more reasonable.
It also ruled that the ERC commissioners “cannot feign ignorance” when Meralco took advantage of the resetting of the effectivity date of the CSP.
“Hence, accommodating companies’ request to be exempted from CSP was a deviation from respondents’ duty to promote public interest through the CSP requirement,” the Ombudsman  said.

No comments:

Post a Comment